1433-01-U Joe Bretsznajder, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 15, 2001
This is an application filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging a violation of section 74 of the Act.
By decision dated September 24, 2001, the Board requested the applicant to file a brief written statement outlining the material facts upon which he relies. The applicant has filed an additional letter outlining his view of the basis for a section 74 complaint. He asserts that the applicant and the employer “conspired” to have a certain job classifications paid at a higher level for some members than for others. He alleges further that this was done in violation of the collective agreement.
The responding union provided response submissions. It renews an earlier request that the Board dismiss the matter without the necessity of a hearing. It relies on this request in part on the nature of the remedy requested by the applicant which is that the employer comply with the collective agreement and make salary adjustments.
The responding union presents a distinctly different version of events than that of the applicant. It refers to having obtained additional monies on behalf of the applicant.
In determining whether to dismiss an application as disclosing no prima facie case, the Board must consider only the submissions of the applicant. Although in this case those submissions are not elaborate, the applicant has pleaded enough to allow the matter to proceed.
The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board